The two-decade search for an AIDS vaccine is in crisis after two field tests of the most promising contender not only did not protect people from the virus but may actually have put them at increased risk of becoming infected, The Washington Post reported.

Experts are questioning the overall strategy and scientific premises of the nearly $500 million in AIDS vaccine research funded annually by the government after the two field tests were halted last September and seven other trials of AIDS vaccines have either been stopped or put off indefinitely.

The recently closed studies, STEP and Phambili, were halted when it became clear the STEP study was futile and possibly harmful.

Why should we fund HIV research with tax dollars at a vastly higher rate than lung cancer? Or heart disease? Or diabetes?

I'm not a budget analyst so I don't really know anything about the funding of Disease A vs. Disease B. Maybe you should ask the President, who has taken a courageous stance in promoting increases for HIV/AIDS funding. Also, instead of taking funding away from HIV/AIDS funding for the similarly-preventable disease of your choice, why not instead question the hundreds of billions the government wastes on real nonsense (like the entire Departments of Housing & Urban Development, Agriculture, Education, Labor and Commerce?).

The total spending on all disease research is peanuts relative to the total budget. As for actual dollars per disease, that's just not something I know remotely enough to comment intelligently on.

102
posted on 03/21/2008 7:23:36 AM PDT
by Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

You appear to contradict yourself. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Which "self-righteous moralists" were you referring to?

The self-righteous moralists who say that all people with HIV/AIDS (and there are around 40 million of them, plus 25 million already dead) deserve to have HIV/AIDS because they're sinners and that therefore we shouldn't worry about them.

103
posted on 03/21/2008 7:25:52 AM PDT
by Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

The self-righteous moralists who say that all people with HIV/AIDS (and there are around 40 million of them, plus 25 million already dead) deserve to have HIV/AIDS because they're sinners and that therefore we shouldn't worry about them.

Got a link? Got a post number?

107
posted on 03/21/2008 7:29:57 AM PDT
by Judith Anne
(I have no idea what to put here. Not a clue.)

This mindset of spending so much for a cure is equivalent to telling people not to bother washing their hands to prevent colds, well just find a cure for colds. Or telling people not to bother quitting smoking, or watching what they eat, because well just simply find a *cure* for whatever afflicts them.

Just a suggestion: do both.

Tell smokers not to smoke AND work to develop treatments for lung cancer.

Tell people in Africa at risk for HIV to avoid risky behaviors (and tell them how to do so), AND also work to develop treatments and maybe even a cure.

Tell people who are obese or who have a family history of heart disease to exercise and eat right, AND also work to find better cholesterol lowering medications, etc.

Life isn't a zero sum game.

110
posted on 03/21/2008 7:33:57 AM PDT
by Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

Tell smokers not to smoke AND work to develop treatments for lung cancer.

Okay, what if the smokers' lobby demanded the right to teach elementary students about their alternate lifestyle? What if they demanded a greater share of research dollars so that smokers could freely practice their lifestyle choice with no physical consequences?

That's what the GLBT lobbyists do. You know that, admit it.

116
posted on 03/21/2008 7:39:13 AM PDT
by Judith Anne
(I have no idea what to put here. Not a clue.)

Spend half the research money on some programs that change the behavior, or, better yet, let the consequences for the behavior run their course, and youd see much better results in reducing the incidence of AIDS and HIV.

I think a lot of prevention activities have happened over the last 25 years -- prevention and education programs are all over the place. And there's been a significant reduction in incidence (at least in western countries) since then.

But as far as viewing it as consequences for bad behavior, no, I won't agree with that. I've lost family members to smoking, I urged them again and again to quit, but they chose not to. I couldn't see myself stand back and say "well, those are the consequences of your behavior".

There were a couple people I knew in high school who later died of AIDS. When I heard they were ill, I didn't think "oh, now you're suffering the consequences of your behavior". I felt badly for them, I felt badly for their family (a mother having to bury her son is one of the saddest things that can happen -- even if the son was gay and died of AIDS).

I agree that gay activists are obnoxious, offensive, and 100x more bothersome than most other disease treatment advocates. And I agree that the amount of money spent on HIV/AIDS is out of proportion to what's spent elsewhere, and I know that's due in part to PC.

But I can't take the next step and insinuate that because someone was stupid enough to have receptive anal sex that society should treat them differently from anyone else who contracted a disease due to lifestyle choices. Just because we all know that Larry Kramer and other AIDS activists are [insert insulting term here] doesn't mean the person who suffers from a lifestyle related disease doesn't deserve compassion and treatment. That's true whether the lifestyle related disease is smoking-related cancer, AIDS, diabetes from obesity, whatever.

And tell the GLBT community here to stop it’s immoral, life threatening behavior.

The people in Africa are bearing the consequences of that irresponsible behavior. The AIDS/HIV research isn’t about them anyway. It’s a liberal PC push to allow gays to continue in their lifestyle without bearing the consequences of their behavior.

Most of the rationale behind the funding for this isn’t to help the victims in Africa and it will likely be decades before any over there even have hope of seeing it. That’s why we’re simply calling it as we see it. It’s about promoting a consequence-free homosexual and drug lifestyle.

It’s nobody else’s fault the disease is still around because a cure hasn’t been found but that of the gay and drug using community. They are the ones responsible for it. They are the ones who can stop it dead in it’s tracks and they are responsible to do so. It’s reprehensible that they would continue behavior that they know will result in the deaths of others.

It’s wrong to continue that, demand funding, and then lay the deaths of innocents at the feet of scientists and researchers for something they failed to do.

120
posted on 03/21/2008 7:44:47 AM PDT
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

That is so false, it boggles the mind that you actually believe it! There are 100’s of causes of Lung Cancer. NOT simply smoking. It is one yes, but to claim Lung cancer is totally preventable is ridiculous! You can't possibly be that ignorant on the subject. Maybe you should do a little actual research, instead of reading junk science articles on the subject.

Not so with AIDS. Even if it is contracted by a couple of other means other than homosexual sexual behavior, the source of it was still the same, in all cases.

ALter Kaker, Your concern about HIV/AIDS “victims” is misguided. The answers you seek lie within your questions. It's simple if you just listen and use common sense.

With the exception of people exposed via transfusions or hospital errors, those infected with HIV/AIDS are not “victims”, they are stupid perverts that prey on our male children.

Even you must remember when smoking and drinking was advertised in every magazine, movies, radio and on TV as being the “cool” thing to do. Medical knowledge was limited at that time and the jury was still out on whether these activities were actually the cause of the diseases of the liver and lungs. HIV/AIDS has always been associated with perverted gay sex, i.e. “gay cancer” back in the late 70’s.

The government charges taxes on every pack of cigarettes and every bottle of booze. The government does not charge a tax on every time some rump ranger “gets lucky”. Yuch. Anyway, my point is that smokers have paid trillions in FEDERAL TAXES throughout the years, drinkers have done the same. If some of that money is used for treatment of smoking/drinking diseases, then so be it. Look at the taxes paid over a smokers lifetime as sort of an insurance policy. They lent money to the government, now they want some of it back.

There is no reason for us “normal people” to suffer increased life/health insurance rates because of the actions of the perverted sick behavior that is known to spread this dreaded disease to other like-minded sickos.

You can throw all the money that has ever been printed at trying to find a cure for HIV/AIDS and the goal will never be met. Contracting the HIV/AIDS virus and dying from it is the only cure. It will cleanse itself from this planet if it is allowed to eliminate those prone to such behavior that allows it to spread. I've said this before and caught all hell from some FReepers who questioned my morals and compassion. I have no compassion for HIV/AIDS “victims” because they are not “victims”!

Keeping them alive at the taxpayers expense is equal to keeping rabid dogs alive to run through the neighborhoods and school grounds biting and infecting our children with rabies. It just doesn't make sense. And before you ask, yes, I do know people with HIV/AIDS and they admit they brought it on themselves through careless drug use (dirty needles) and promiscuous sexual encounters.

“That is so false, it boggles the mind that you actually believe it! There are 100s of causes of Lung Cancer. NOT simply smoking. It is one yes, but to claim Lung cancer is totally preventable is ridiculous! You can’t possibly be that ignorant on the subject. Maybe you should do a little actual research, instead of reading junk science articles on the subject.”

There are 100s of causes of Lung Cancer. NOT simply smoking. It is one yes, but to claim Lung cancer is totally preventable is ridiculous! You can't possibly be that ignorant on the subject. Maybe you should do a little actual research, instead of reading junk science articles on the subject.

Over 90% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. Many of the rest are caused by other preventable issues (radon inhalation and asbestos being prominent). The vast majority of lung cancer cases are preventable -- a relatively small number aren't. Similarly, a lot of people who have HIV have it because their husband cheated on them, because they were infected in utero, because they were raped or because they received a tainted blood transfusion (or other substandard medical procedure).

Not sure why that boggles your mind...

130
posted on 03/21/2008 8:03:06 AM PDT
by Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

It is curious that you negate the moral distinction between contracting HIV and the common cold. Unless I lived in a sterile environment I could wash my hands all day and still get the common cold, while the first word in AIDS is "acquired;" i.e., one must actively choose to engage in activity one knows carries the risk of infection in order to be infected.

IOW your analogy is worthless for the purpose of positing moral equivalence. Given that there exists an easily-understood and effective means of rendering its epidemiological impact to one of extreme rarity, and that said means (monogamy) is demonstrably beneficial to the general good of a society, then to argue that hundreds of billions of money be confiscated by force to be spent on prevention and treatment does not put HIV on the same level as any other infectious disease.

If smokers and the families of smokers were on tv demanding a cure, and trying to make you feel like a vicious, unfeeling bigot for not donating enough, not caring enough, don't tell me you wouldn't suggest that people stop smoking.

Actually many of them were on TV not that many years ago....demanding that the Clinton Justice Dept. sue the pants off the tobacco companies, to punish them for their own irresponsible choices that they had made for years.

Once the fleecing started, it paved the way for individual lawsuits by smokers against big tobacco, and they now had a case too thanks to the feds. Trial lawyers had a field day with all that (and still are).

I'll withhold my moral judgement on AIDS sufferers, but the crux of this arguement isn't all that different.

1. I don't think that's true -- unless some ridiculous percentage of the population of Southern Africa is bisexual.

2. Even if it were true, so what? Do women control who their husbands cheat on them with? Regardless of whether their husbands get HIV from prostitutes, from local floozies or from other men, they still get the disease. In the long run -- at least from the woman's perspective -- it really doesn't matter.

143
posted on 03/21/2008 8:13:37 AM PDT
by Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

Uh... you're going to need a little more than a snappy one liner if you're hoping to overturn the consensus of the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the Merck Manual, the American Medical Association and every other medical group under the sun...

144
posted on 03/21/2008 8:15:19 AM PDT
by Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

I'm talking about Africa because that's where the vast majority of people with HIV/AIDS live. If we were talking about SARS, I'd be talking about China. If we were talking about BDS, I'd be talking about California.

145
posted on 03/21/2008 8:16:44 AM PDT
by Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)

The elimination of Smallpox is not just the killing of the virus (by preconditioning the immune system to recognize the virus and kill it inside the body) but complete GENOCIDE by eliminating the entire lineage of the virus.

Viruscide? Genocide? Extinction?

Either way the virus was killed dead until there is none left (in the ‘wild’) to kill.

I’m just guessing here, but I’d be willing to bet you don’t know the transmission rate of HIV from female to male, vs male to female or male to male.

In fact, I doubt you have a clue. For someone who doesn’t know the amount of money spent on HIV research vs the other MAJOR killers, doesn’t know why universal precautions are mandatory now when they weren’t 30 years ago, and who doesn’t know HIV transmission rates in varying demographics, you have a remarkably one-sided viewpoint.

147
posted on 03/21/2008 8:17:38 AM PDT
by Judith Anne
(I have no idea what to put here. Not a clue.)

Actually many of them were on TV not that many years ago....demanding that the Clinton Justice Dept. sue the pants off the tobacco companies, to punish them for their own irresponsible choices that they had made for years.

It wasn't conservatives cheering them on. At least they limited themselves to the companies involved and didn't try to shame John Q Public.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.